1,136
edits
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2 (view source)
Revision as of 02:57, 2 September 2009
, 2 September 2009→Opening arguments: changed sub section name to RationalWiki vs Wikipedia
(→Criticism and rebuttals: added subsection "opening arguments" to make editing easier, so that we have an edit link for only that section) |
(→Opening arguments: changed sub section name to RationalWiki vs Wikipedia) |
||
| Line 280: | Line 280: | ||
== Criticism and rebuttals == | == Criticism and rebuttals == | ||
=== | ===RationalWiki vs Wikipedia=== | ||
I don't see how this wiki could possibly expect to compete realistically with Wikipedia, in terms of the "official" goals that are listed at the top of this article. It does however have an interesting and active community and Wikipedia does not allow satire. ([[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) [Update: And you can say [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Creation_science dirty words]. :) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:04, 31 August 2009 (EDT)] | I don't see how this wiki could possibly expect to compete realistically with Wikipedia, in terms of the "official" goals that are listed at the top of this article. It does however have an interesting and active community and Wikipedia does not allow satire. ([[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) [Update: And you can say [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Creation_science dirty words]. :) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:04, 31 August 2009 (EDT)] | ||
| Line 332: | Line 332: | ||
:(it's called undenting, and it's normal in wiki discussions) This has nothing to do with reliable sources. RationalWiki also references its claims. But that's not the point. The point is that NPOV requires all sides to be presented fairly, and that the article take no side. RW does take a side. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 08:00, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | :(it's called undenting, and it's normal in wiki discussions) This has nothing to do with reliable sources. RationalWiki also references its claims. But that's not the point. The point is that NPOV requires all sides to be presented fairly, and that the article take no side. RW does take a side. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 08:00, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::I suppose you could say that NPOV implies a sort of "fairness", but they do distinguish between (what they call) "reliable" and "unreliable" sources and I challenge you to find anything in the Wikipedia that states that Creationism is anything but psuedoscience. The Wikipedia states in no uncertain terms that evolution is a fact. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact It has and article devoted to this viewpoint]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 10:20, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ::I suppose you could say that NPOV implies a sort of "fairness", but they do distinguish between (what they call) "reliable" and "unreliable" sources and I challenge you to find anything in the Wikipedia that states that Creationism is anything but psuedoscience. The Wikipedia states in no uncertain terms that evolution is a fact. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact It has and article devoted to this viewpoint]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 10:20, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::Thank you for explaining the term undenting, BTW. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 10:22, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ::Thank you for explaining the term undenting, BTW. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 10:22, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
===An <del>very rare</del> example of Lumenos misunderstanding=== | ===An <del>very rare</del> example of Lumenos misunderstanding=== | ||